Citizens United v. FEC

• Article

• Talk

(Redirected from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission )

"Citizens United" redirects here. For the political organization this case is named after, see Citizens United (organization) . For other uses, see Citizens United (disambiguation) .

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court about campaign finance law, in which the Court held that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and labor unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion. All Democratic-appointed justices dissented.

The Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Citizens United sparked significant controversy, with some viewing it as a defense of American principles of free speech and a safeguard against government overreach, and others criticizing it for reaffirming the longstanding principle of corporate personhood ,[2] and for allowing large corporations to wield disproportionate political power by allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money to support their chosen political candidates, provided the corporations were technically independent of the campaigns.

Kennedy's opinion holds that the prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the First Amendment.[3] The ruling bars restrictions on corporations', unions', and nonprofit organizations' independent expenditures, allowing groups to independently support political candidates with financial resources. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the Court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people."[4]

Reactions to the decision were sharply divided. Typical were those of Senator Mitch McConnell , who called the decision "an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights",[5] and of then-president Barack Obama , who said the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington".[6]

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 District Court proceedings

• 3 Arguments before the Supreme Court

• 4 Opinion of the court

  • 4.1 Majority opinion

  • 4.2 Concurring opinions

  • 4.3 Dissenting opinion

• 5 Subsequent judicial developments

• 6 Public reactions

  • 6.1 Support

  • 6.2 Opposition

  • 6.3 Polls

• 7 Legislative responses

  • 7.1 Federal

  • 7.2 States

• 8 Political impact

• 9 Election impact

• 10 See also

• 11 References

• 12 Further reading

• 13 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._FEC&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA", prohibited "electioneering communications" paid for by incorporated entities. These were defined as broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate by name within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, and reaching at least 40,000 people in the relevant electorate.[7] During the 2004 presidential campaign , Citizens United , a conservative, nonprofit advocacy organization, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore 's film _Fahrenheit 9/11 _, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 , constituted "electioneering communications" and thus could not be aired 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.[8] Citizens United later produced a documentary, _Celsius 41.11 _, that criticized both Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry . The FEC, however, held that showing Celsius 41.11 or advertisements for it during the 60 days before the election would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act , because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial filmmaker.[9]

In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial filmmaker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films. During the 2008 political primary season , it sought to run three television advertisements to promote its political documentary _Hillary: The Movie _, a film critical of Hillary Clinton , and to air the movie on DirecTV .[10] Based on the FEC's 2004 decision, Citizens United feared that the FEC would hold that its ads and payments to DirecTV violated BCRA—specifically, Section 203, which defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and labor unions. Citizens United filed for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court.[1]

District Court proceedings

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._FEC&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: District Court proceedings")

In December 2007, Citizens United filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of several statutory provisions governing "electioneering communicati

…